http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan24.html
Judith Martin becomes my sock puppet re: weddings and marriages (i.e.: anyone concerned about the sanctity of the institution of marriage should be far more alarmed by the couples currently practicing it than those aspiring to do so, and other miscellanous gripes about greed, "personalization," etc.).
"Those who want to protect the institution of marriage from mockery should shift their fearful attention from would-be marriage partners to weddings. It is not the couples yearning for marriage that scare Miss Manners, but those who are actively planning to enter into it.
After all, nobody can figure out why this person wants to marry that person or that sort. Despite centuries spent pondering the curious phenomenon of people choosing marriage partners who don't suit onlookers, it remains unfathomable.
But the current practices common in the ceremonial expression of marriage indicate clearly how most people regard the institution itself. As negligible, Miss Manners would say.
This attitude is by no means limited to people who decide that they do not need to get married in order to cohabit and/or to have children. It can be read in the choices made by brides and bridegrooms who are not only getting married but making a huge fuss over doing so.
Naturally it is not the weddings that they consider negligible. On the contrary, these are deemed to be of such enormous importance that a couple can easily put a year's planning and all of their financial resources (and then some) into producing a series of wedding events. They cherish -- and do everything they can to foster -- the belief that such a momentous festival requires everyone fortunate enough to be allowed to witness it to make major commitments of time, attention and money.
And they insist upon observing what they are pleased to call traditions, the foremost of which seems to be choosing what they want to receive as presents.
It is just the getting married part -- the actual ceremony that marks the legal and often religious act of marrying -- that is treated as malleable. The wedding has become a great blast of a party, which is stuck with a slow start when everyone is expected to curb the fun and pay attention. Symbolizing the relative importance of the activities, brides now dress for the parties that follow, in strapless ball dresses, rather than donning the often impossibly elaborate but still somewhat modest wedding dresses that long symbolized the dignity of the occasion.
Increasingly, the marriage doesn't even really take place at the wedding, where a marriage previously legalized may be a mere reenactment serving as the excuse for a big wedding. (By that standard, brides who postpone getting married until after the birth of a child, because of the importance of fitting into the wedding dress, seem positively sentimental.)
To whatever extent possible, the ceremony has become part of the couple's pageantry of personal display. As they inevitably declare, "We want this to be about us." So begins the reworking to "personalize it" with their own script. Not infrequently, this includes jokes and all-too-private reminiscences. Officiants, too, contribute their share in the spirit of undercutting the solemnity to make the ceremony entertaining. And guests recognize this with their applause.
Miss Manners acknowledges that this approach to weddings is consistent with the society's belief that vows and loyalties are binding only in regard to the amount of entertainment they continue to yield.
The idea of channeling the couple's commitment into the traditions of the society has been reversed, so that weddings have become opportunities for them to show off to society.
She wishes them well. Just don't expect her to shed the traditional tear over the significance of it all. "
Linear Mode
